New World of Darkness, GNS analysis?

[Robert Bohl]

Has anyone reviewed the new World of Darkness games from a GNS perspective?  I'd be curious to see what the opinion was.

[Trevis Martin]

Well I have and have read both the new WOD rules and Vampire: The Requiem.  I haven't absorbed them completely but I plan to playtest them shortly going by the rules to see what grey areas there still are.

So far from reading there are some significant changes that I like quite a bit, specifically with regard to Vampire.  There is still too much fiction in the books for my taste however, but it is WW's standard MO.  It looks to me like the weight of metaplot no longer crushes PC's  Vampires do not know where they came from and blood grows in power principly with age (and there are rules to make older vampires) and then thins out again when the vampire is forced into torpor.  There is no world spanning vampire conspiracy, eveything is pretty much local.(though vampires of like opinion have contacts in other cities.)  There is no dualistic setup of the 'good' vampires and the 'bad' and humanity is now the only scale.  There are no paths that replace humanity.

Now the feeling of freedom could be because there are simply no supplements out yet, but as of now, and with the book written the way it is, the world is wide open for the PC's  And the backstory as it stands seems like it will not admit a metaplot of the nature of the previous WoD.

The resolution system as written is still significantly oriented towards task based resolution rather than conflict.  There is still the suggestion that if you don't like the way dice or rules take things then the GM should disregard the rules in favor of 'good story.'  

Gone is nature and demeanor archetypes, instead characters now have a virtue and a vice, basically the seven mortal sins and their opposites.  Players have some metaplot input through charcters willpower points which affect die rolls by adding 3 dice to a roll or by adding two to defensive traits.  Characters regain 1 willpower point in a scene if things play out towards their vice, and regains all of them if things play out towards their virtue.

Most interesting they have gone to a fixed TN of 8, rather than different TN's for different difficutlies.  All modifiers (including task difficulty) are given or removed in terms of dice added or removed from the pool.  I thought that very interesting b/c it seems to show influence of so many games from indie designers. It would be super easy...and tempting...to house rule Sorcerer style die bonuses.  WW leaves the door wide open here as all modifiers are decided by the GM.

Reward systems:
The experience point system and suggestions is the same system WW has been using since at least Second Edition.  In itself the criteria are either simulationist or gamist. (how much danger did they face, how appropriately did they roleplay.)  

Humanity is based on a heirarchy of sins.  Doing one of the sins causes a degenration test which is less and less likely to cause degeneration as the characters humanity drops.  Of course the GM can impose modifies to make it more likely.  I haven't decided whether this is simulationist personality mechanics or whether it is more a narrativist marker of significant moral decision.  And I won't be able to tell until I play it (and I will have to try hard not to drift it towards Sorcerer) I'm more inclined to say simulationist at this point.

The Willpower gaining setup that I mentioned above is for fulfilling character ideals, and seems pretty simmy because the ideals are so general, they are broad principles.  If they were more in line with SA's like TROS I'd call them narrativist but at this point it seems more simmy.

That's the best analysis I can give, (apologies for being disorganized) until I get to play the game.  It still seems pretty driftable.  The setting doesn't crush you anymore.  I don't know whether it will require drift or not.  It seems to have become more solidly simulationist but it will be hard to tell until later.

best,

Trevis

[Robert Bohl]

Thanks, Trevis.

Do you consider it to be coherent or incoherent (in GNS terms)?

[Marco]

I think that GNS-Incoherence needs a close look. As someone who thinks that Sim-style rules (or at least cause/effect-style mechanics) are just about perfect for facilitating premise questions, I don't think the whole notion of GNS Incoherence is an especially well defined analysis of a rules-set.

[ But I have to say that review of the rules and setting was excellent and made it sound interesting to me! ]

-Marco

[sirogit]

Its just more pretend-Nar, in my played-two-short-campaigns opinion.

More rules-Light

Fewer Gamist mechanisms.

Less Abusable.

But very few actually Nar elemenets, excepting:

Less Metaplot.
Better clan-scheme.

The Humanity mechanic, how its worded, how it comes in to play, leans very heavily toward use as Behavioral control, you'd have to jury rig it pretty hard to be narrativist.

That said its less incoherent than VTM and less obstructionist to a Nar game than VTM. Still doesn't make it coherent or narrativist.

[Robert Bohl]

Its just more pretend-Nar, in my played-two-short-campaigns opinion.

More rules-Light

Fewer Gamist mechanisms.

Less Abusable.

But very few actually Nar elemenets, excepting:

Less Metaplot.
Better clan-scheme.

The Humanity mechanic, how its worded, how it comes in to play, leans very heavily toward use as Behavioral control, you'd have to jury rig it pretty hard to be narrativist.

That said its less incoherent than VTM and less obstructionist to a Nar game than VTM. Still doesn't make it coherent or narrativist.

Thanks.  I'll admit that some of this went over my head but I get the jist of it.

[Per Fischer]

The Humanity mechanic, how its worded, how it comes in to play, leans very heavily toward use as Behavioral control, you'd have to jury rig it pretty hard to be narrativist.

I have only read the quickstart version of the rules, but I get the same impression as you describe in your actual play experience.

Would you mind expanding on the Humanity mechanic - and how you think it could be rigged towards nar? And how does it function as a behavioral control?

Per

[Robert Bohl]

I have not yet played the game, though I have a series getting prepared.  However, I know that the expressed intent of the game designers isn't to punish people for sinning, but rather to model mental and moral degredation as a theme in horror games and to have the Morality (Humanity for vampires) stat act descriptively rather than proscriptively.

[Trevis Martin]

I think that its hard to call but looking at the reward mechanisms of the game is telling.  Since 1st edition Vampire, Humanity and degeneration are supposed to be the core around which the game revolves.  V:TR actually says that.

So how can a Kindred survive the Requiem?  How can he preserve some shred of Human conscience when the Beast never tires?  What limit can he set to his own monstrosity?

The characters must answer that question for themselves.  That's what Vampire: The Requiem is all about. (p185)

Mechanically, Humanity puts limitations on the character. The base definition is the book is empathy for other beings and respect for the rules of law. There is a heirarchy of sins which all have a dice rating (between 5 and 2 dice) according to how low they are on the scale.  The worse a sin is, the less dice you have to roll for a degeneration check.  You have to roll a success (an 8) on at least one die to avoid loosing Humanity (which I think is a little better than 50% chance for the sins at the bottom of the scale.)  Once you have passed a level though,  you never test for that sin again.

What are the game mechanical effects of loosing humanity?  Well, first, its gets harder and harder to degenerate.  Not from odds but by the mere fact that the sins on the lowest end of the scale would be rarely attempted by PC's.  Humanity two is listed as Casual/callous crime (e.g. torture, serial murder)  Humanity one is listed as Utter perversion, henious acts (e.g. combined rape, torture and murder, mass murder.)  Even with frenzy (from fear, hunger or anger) where you become a completely instinctual monster the lowest rung is not accessable IMO because it takes thought to accomplish it.  This, in effect, keeps you from sliding off the edge into the end game condition of 0 humanity where your character becomes an NPC.  The threat of humanity loss has no real teeth.

Each time a humanity level is lost you roll the number of dice for your new level.  If the test is failed you gain a derangement (insanity.)  Most of the derangments in the book have a game mechanical effect, mostly modifiers to die pools for various situations.  But the descriptions of the derangment also put roleplaying boundaries on the player's portrayal of the character.  In fact there is a further section that describes how the character behaves at each humanity level.  Nothing mechanical but it gives a notion of the range a character operates in at specific levels, again creating boundries for the players portrayal of the character.

With this type of system in place the game is trying to enforce a particular model of degenration in which the characters behave like monsters.  To cap it off, in the actual experience point section one of the points is for:

Roleplaying: The player can win one experience point for playing the role of her character exceptionally well.  Not only did her performance entertain the other players, she showed the strengths and weaknesses of the character's personality.  Nothing was out of character.  The player stuck to what the character knew, without bringing in the players out of game knowledge, or stuck to the characters motivations even when they became inconvienient.  p229

This is condition is for one point out of 6 available, by the rules, per session.  Note that actor stance is enforced, but more specifically this encourages the player to go along with all strictures involved in the degenation of humanity and gaining of derangments.

The method for regaining humanity?  Spending experience points.  Though the GM and player are encouraged that the player needs to portray the character as being genuinely remorseful.

This becomes more supportive of high concept sim than nar because this mechanic is not about Story Now.  Humanity, unlike in Sorcerer,  does not seem designed to act explicitly as a marker for critical decision points in the game.  The risk is not constant unless you play within the dictated boundaries of the system.  The system doesn't ask What would you do, it asks what is it like?  Specifically what is it like to degenrate into a monster?

Willpower, the players main metagame power points, are also regained by adhereing to self-placed portrayal restrictions called Vice and Virtue.

Could you play Nar with WoD or V:tR?  Sure.  You can play anything with anything.  But it would be outside the scope of the game rules as written.  And the mechanics themselves and the tone of the book don't make a lot of effort to support it.  The rules would have to be drifted to support nar explicitly if you want that support in the game.  The system itself, rules wise, I don't think is incoherent.  There is incoherence here but it comes from the mechanics of the game not aligning to what the game says it wants to do.

You probably can't play it nar as written because of what I call the compression of options in your portrayal that the system inflicts on you.
But they have a compelling (I think) setting, which is what attracted me in the first place.  To play it Nar I would probably change the humanity mechanic to degenrate the way it does in Sorcerer.  Every time the humanity def is violated I would roll the pool vs itself (or two dice in the existing system, the odds are about the same.)  I would also include humanity gain rolls on the same basis.  I would dump any portrayal restrictors.  Humanity would become a binary condition, either you have it or you don't. If you don't, I wouldn't say that the beast takes over, more that you have become completely inhuman.  I would also allow die bonuses for cool or imaginitve roleplaying.

That's a rather wordy answer to your question but I've been doing this analysis for a few days now in my head and I had to write it down.

best,

Trevis

[Christopher Kubasik]

Trevis -- or anybody --

Help me out here.

Trevis above wrote:

"The system itself, rules wise, I don't think is incoherent. There is incoherence here but it comes from the mechanics of the game not aligning to what the game says it wants to do."

Now, I would have assumed that this is exactly what is meant by incoherence all the time.  That in reading a game text, the total of a game text, either the paragraphs and charts across the book support each other (or, at least don't get in each other's way); or the text and charts across the book work at a cross purpose.

So, given what Trever said about the text saying the game is about one thing, and the mechanics in practice making the game is about something else, what we've got here is an incoherent game text. Not with a qualifier, but plain and simple.

Right?

Best regards,

Christopher

[Robert Bohl]

The method for regaining humanity?  Spending experience points.  Though the GM and player are encouraged that the player needs to portray the character as being genuinely remorseful.

Well, that's not entirely true.  The Storyteller is free to award a point of Morality without XP cost if the character's role-played actions show they're trying to improve themselves.

Willpower, the players main metagame power points, are also regained by adhereing to self-placed portrayal restrictions called Vice and Virtue.

Those aren't the only ways, though.  A full night's rest, or a chance to "recharge your batteries" gets you back a point, the acheivement of significant goals or performance of impressive acts that would restore the character's self-confidence, and the completion of a story (which is a game term referring to a number of individual sessions that tell a single story).

Humanity would become a binary condition, either you have it or you don't. If you don't, I wouldn't say that the beast takes over, more that you have become completely inhuman.  I would also allow die bonuses for cool or imaginitve roleplaying.

So apart from being merely descriptive, what role would you see Humanity or Morality as having?

That's a rather wordy answer to your question but I've been doing this analysis for a few days now in my head and I had to write it down.

I appreciate it.  Let me refocus.  You may have already addressed this, but my GNS-fu is not so great.

It seems like you regard the game to consider itself to be narrativist, but that more of its rules are simulationist.  But you don't consider this to be a problematic source of incoherence that would cause the game to be dysfunctional.

Is that accurate?

[Robert Bohl]

So, given what Trever said about the text saying the game is about one thing, and the mechanics in practice making the game is about something else, what we've got here is an incoherent game text. Not with a qualifier, but plain and simple.

Chris,

Are you saying that due to the fact that it is saying one thing and doing another, that makes it incoherent?

What is the relationship between coherence and function (or incoherence and dysfunction)?

[Alan]

So, given what Trever said about the text saying the game is about one thing, and the mechanics in practice making the game is about something else, what we've got here is an incoherent game text. Not with a qualifier, but plain and simple.

Chris,

Are you saying that due to the fact that it is saying one thing and doing another, that makes it incoherent?

What is the relationship between coherence and function (or incoherence and dysfunction)?

From Ron's glossary "incoherant" play is play where the rules used in play support different creative agendas, (or, I suppose, don't support any particular CA.)  

Christopher used the term "incoherent text," which I read to mean the text does indeed say one thing, while the rules support another.  Whether _play_ will actually be incoherant depends on how the text rules are used in actual play.

[Robert Bohl]

So it would appear that the concensus is that to one degree or another, nWoD is a troubled game from a GNS perspective.  The only opinion of whether that makes it noxiously so said that it was liveable.

[Trevis Martin]

Chris,

Of course you are right, it's an incoherent game by simply not making mechanics to support its stated purpose. In my head I was seperating the actual mechanics from statments about play in the text.  But they are a whole.  I'd like to review my text more to examine any other areas where they seem to be intersted in Nar type goals, but I can't remember any at the moment beyond that one instance.   What has improved is that the mechanical parts of the system don't seem to fight anymore.

Rob,

Humanity would definately be more than descriptive.  I'd want humanity to have teeth.  That is any morally questionable act against the definition of humanity is risking a humanity point loss. And the character is capable of any moral act at any time.  This gives humanity loss teeth because you CAN drive your humaniy to 0, and without too much difficulty, at which point the character becomes inhuman and thus an NPC.  He has lost his war not to be a monster.  

Equally in that setup it is possible to regain humanity by meritorious acts relative to the humanty definition.  Either way, the humanity roll highlights the significance of the act or the decision.

Thus each decision made that risks humanity has real significance not only in 'story' terms but also in actual terms for the people at the table.

This is what I loved so much about Sorcerer.  It answered something about Vampire that I hadn't put words to.  But I knew something bothered me.  Ron changed humanity from a personality mechanic into a narrativist critical decision marker.

As for the game being dysfunctional.  It depends on weather the prospective players go into the situation with its eyes open.  IF you play the rules as written (notwithstanding the text about what the "game is about") You probably would have a solid simulationist game.  

If you want the game to support Nar then the rules would have to be drifted a bit.  I don't know that it blocks narrativism, but without rules changes the narrativism would be informal.  Either way, since you are ignoring part of the game text you would be drifting the rules to some extent.  I don't think its so troubled as to be unplayable.  And as I mentioned, I quite like the setting.  I like it better now than I did before.

best,

Trevis